Well I simply disagree with that (4.00 / 1)

I can't speak to the congresswoman, but regarding your statement:

Why should she support a path to citizenship (above and beyond that which already exists through standard, legal immigration), especially considering that such methods in the past have not solved the problem? The 1986 amnesty certainly did not stem the flood of illegal immigration; it actually increased.

And where is the logic in this sentence:"Gillibrand needs to change her position on [illegal] immigration...now that she is representing the whole state, including New York City, where immigrants are the backbone of the economy"?

1. There is no equivilency between illegal immigrants and immigrants.

2. Immigrants are not the backbone of the economy, unless your definition of immigrants is so elastic it includes the entire 45-60 demographic that is at its peak earning power.

3. Do you honestly believe that illegal immigration, or immigration in general, is a fundamental necessity for driving the economy?

4. The obvious solution to illegal immigration is to recognize it as a symptom of a larger root problem: a lack of economic opportunity in their home countries, which is caused to a considerable degree by our own trade and subsidy policies. Properly done, changing those policies will substantially boost their material well-being (and that of their communities), while also fulfilling our obligations to fellow Americans and their economic well-being here at home.

Your solution completely ignores the larger problem, does not identify an appropriate remedy, and tries to use changes in terminology to recast the issue as yet another exercise in identity politics. The fact that your solution (path to citizenship)does not even begin to address the underlying root problem shows just how myopic it really is.

The last 30 years, Dems and their politicians have been "locked in a cage" by the right, and the often feeble, small-time solutions they came up with certainly reflected that. Those days are thankfully over. We do have the power to address the root problem...and that will result in a better world for everyone.

---

by: glacierpeaks @ Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 00:54:08 AM CST

Why does she need to change her stance? (0.00 / 0)

Don't get me wrong, I do not agree with the stance of those who fail to recognize the importance that immigrants play in our economy and the inhuman ways that we exploit them.  But you have misplaced the loci of responsibility.  I'm sure that her position is not unconsidered and it certainly has a good deal of public support.  So why should she change her position?

We need to act to encourage her to change her position.  This may seem like semantic BS, but I believe in the power of semantics.  When you say she must change, the responsibility belongs to her you have, in a sense, abdicated responsibility.  If we say that we must change her position then we have said that we must take action.  In this statement we are much more likely to provide more rational and, more importantly, we are more likely to put forth a plan of action for assuming the responsibility that we have recognized. For example we need to find out who she respects that is likely to make the argument and how we can provide them with enough information and motivation to make that argument as powerfully as possible.  What are we going to do to encourage her constituents to get involved in changing her mind?

---

by: Hugh Stearns @ Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 08:33:32 AM CST